FELDER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-010-042, Claim No. 105374

Synopsis

Case Information

DANIEL FELDER The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper party defendant.

Claimant short
name:

FELDER

Footnote (claimant name)
:

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name)
:

The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper party defendant.

Third-party
claimant(s):

Third-party
defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

105374

Motion number(s):

Cross-motion
number(s):

Judge:

Terry Jane Ruderman

Claimant's
attorney:

DANIEL FELDERPro Se

Defendant's
attorney:

HON. ELIOT SPITZERAttorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's
attorney:

Signature date:

March 3, 2004

City:

White Plains

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned
case)

Decision

Claimant seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained while he was
incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (Sing Sing). Claimant contends
that his personal photographs were wrongfully taken and that he was assaulted by
Sing Sing staff on October 1, 2001.

Claimant testified that on October 1, 2001, he observed several correction
officers in his cell placing photographs in their pockets and bags. Later that
day, he was interviewed by Lieutenant Kerrigan and Sergeant McNamara. According
to claimant, at the end of the interview he was assaulted by Kerrigan and
McNamara.[1]

Lieutenant Harry Kerrigan testified that he has been a correction officer at
Sing Sing since 1983. He stated that he ordered the search of

claimant's cell because he was found to be in possession of a photograph of the
husband of a correction officer. Kerrigan explained that it was a violation of
facility policy for an inmate to have a photograph of a member of an employee's
family; thus the photograph was considered contraband. The interview was
conducted to ascertain how claimant came into possession of the picture.
Kerrigan recalled that claimant was cooperative rather than agitated during the
interview. After the interview, with the exception of the photograph,
claimant's property was returned.

Kerrigan testified that

claimant left after the interview and there was no other contact. Kerrigan
insisted that neither he nor anyone else assaulted or threatened
claimant.

Upon listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they
did so, the Court finds Kerrigan's version of the facts to be more credible than

claimant's version. Accordingly, Claim No. 105374 is
dismissed.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 105374.

March 3, 2004White
Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMANJudge of the Court of
Claims

[1] Claimant seeks a copy of the tape of the
interview. Lieutenant Kerrigan testified that it does not exist. In any event,
the interview is not in issue and would not shed any light on the alleged
assault which allegedly took place after the interview.